Backwards, and wrong.

It is wrong to start with a conclusion and then seek any evidence to support it.

This happens all too frequently in these parts.

This is a very unscientific approach. (foregone conclusions, cognitive dissonance, what have you)

please elaborate upon what you're saying

reply to post by Jedimind


gnorw

Change the conclusion to a premise and work from there.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


premise aka hypothesis...exactly my point

reply to post by Jedimind


Science ought to work like this...


Observation
Experimentation
Repetition
Conclusion

In that order, and in no other configuration.

reply to post by blueyezblkdragon


I'm referring to the tendency for people to have an emotional attachment and investment in foregone conclusions (a conclusion formed in advance of proper consideration of evidence, arguments, etc. )... no matter what the topic at hand.

reply to post by Jedimind


You are not the only one who gets frustrated at this particular type of foolishness Jedimind. To behave in such a way is the most foolish way to squander the benefits that having access to the tool of science, could bring to the species. It is such an appalling waste.

reply to post by Jedimind


I see this quite often as well, and frankly is pisses me off beyond belief as well. It seems to be quite common when people try to justify their personal BELIEFS with scientific EVIDENCE.

The difference is quite clear cut to people who try and keep an objective mindset, but not everyone can step back and just admit they don't know instead of trying to justify something.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for proving a concept through sound scientific principles, I'm simply getting at people who will argue something with 'evidence' although the said evidence could actually point in many directions... they seem to just write it off as absolutely true, proven, and case closed. Can't argue with them, so just let it go.

TrueBrit
reply to post by Jedimind

 

Science ought to work like this...


Observation
Experimentation
Repetition
Conclusion

In that order, and in no other configuration.

While I don't agree with the repition part...repeating anything never proves anything IMHo...I agree with the rest 👍😜👍

ETA
Maybe sometimes repition proves something 😆 rarely however, does it prove a thing depending on the science.

reply to post by doompornjunkie


Not trying to derail the topic...but if someone could please tell me how to quit smoking, I'd most appreciate any input

👍😜👍

reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1


While I understand the reasoning behind your dislike of repetition, it does serve a very important purpose, where experimentation is concerned.

Let me give you an example. If a person decided to monitor ONE lightning storm, with devices designed for the purpose of measuring the wattage output of individual bolts of lightning, and measured just ONE bolt of lightning, then their entire understanding of the phenomenon would be based around that single incident. Statistically speaking, that methodology is flawed, for many reasons. First, no two bolts of lightning have the exact same characteristics, in terms of power, frequency and so on. Also, not all storms are created equal. One kind of storm, at one time of year, will behave totally differently to another type of storm, at another time of year. So, if one is to learn a significant amount about lightning, one has to measure the power of not only one individual bolt of lightning, but many bolts, from many different storms.

Repeating experiments gives the scientist the ability to say that his or her results are not mere anomaly, and THAT means that the data they have gained from the exercise can be used to build theories which might lead to either better experiments, and greater understanding, or technologies which utilise the same functions of physics or chemistry, or whatever science is involved, to achieve a particular end. For example (not a popular one, I will admit), nuclear power was conceived only after many explorations had been enacted, into the behavior of the split atom.

It does mean that good solid science, requires time and effort, and much re-treading of old ground, but that is the way that good results, which can teach us something about the physical universe, are acquired. It is why deep space telescopes continue to scan the depths of the void, why people STILL look at viruses down microscopes, and why there are two satellites engaged in a long dance with the sun, measuring every blip, spot, and flare that it throws out.

reply to post by TrueBrit


It SHOULD work that way, but the system is too corrupted with ignorance caused by arrogance.

reply to post by Jedimind


So without any examples, with zero evidence, you have concluded this, thus doing precisely what you are complaining about. If your rant were a scientific paper it would be rejected for coming to a conclusion prior to citing the evidence.

Fail. Not epic; just plain "fail."

schuyler
reply to post by Jedimind

 

So without any examples, with zero evidence, you have concluded this, thus doing precisely what you are complaining about. If your rant were a scientific paper it would be rejected for coming to a conclusion prior to citing the evidence.

Fail. Not epic; just plain "fail."

You are incorrect in stating that I concluded this without any evidence or examples.

"If your rant were a scientific paper..." ...It is not intended to be one, of course.

reply to post by Jedimind

as in..."I think that guy DID it!".(before reviewing all available evidence)